As I've said repeatedly. This simply moves the problem it does not solve it. Today, a project has mentors, usually it works, but sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't work someone needs to fix it. That is the work that is being moved from the IPMC to the board by the pTLP proposal.
It's not necessarily a bad thing and may be acceptable to the board, but I don't understand why proponents of this approach feel it is a solution rather than a moving of the problem. Furthermore, I've not even started on who would own the documentation aspect (yes the proposal is ComDev but just as last time this was circulated nobody has asked ComDev if they are willing to take it on and nobody has turned up in ComDev to do the work. This proposal is not necessarily flawed, but it is incomplete. Ross -----Original Message----- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 1:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting from those > reviews, the IPMC is. Agreed for the state of the things today. What is being proposed is that actions resulting from those reviews are going to be pTLPs PMC responsibility. Since in the new world order each pTLP PMC is guaranteed to have 3 ASF members and a chair (one of the 3) that is also an ASF member, I don't think I can see how this would be disagreeable with the mechanics of ASF board. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
